Dusk recently rumors have circulated that institutional holdings might have increased from 45% to 70%. Although there is no official confirmation and the source is unclear, this is definitely worth considering. If true, what does it imply? If false, why would such claims be made?
Looking back, the 45% figure most likely comes from estimates based on initial token distribution. During the first allocation in 2019, the combined share of institutions and project team was close to 80%. By April 2022, when the unlock period ended, no one really knows how much institutions still held. If holdings truly increased to 70%, spot selling pressure would significantly decrease, providing price support. The problem is, there is currently no on-chain data to confirm this, nor any public announcement.
Let's examine the on-chain situation. The top five addresses still hold 68.65%, with no change. Binance's cold wallet contains 13.46%, which is mostly retail custodial funds. If institutions really increased their holdings, they would likely do so through OTC channels, which are inherently opaque. The only way to indirectly observe this is through net outflows from exchanges.
Logically, increasing holdings to 25% of circulating supply in the short term would require investing about 37.5 million USD. The market should have already reacted to this. Such rumors, frankly, could just be a common marketing tactic in the crypto space aimed at triggering retail FOMO.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
12 Likes
Reward
12
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
RugDocDetective
· 01-24 06:01
The lie that couldn't be smashed with 37.5 million is just making up another story.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-3824aa38
· 01-24 05:29
It's the same FOMO rhetoric again. The $37.5 million poured in, and the market responded early. Now you're just trying to harvest profits... The on-chain data is right here; if there's no movement, then there's no movement.
View OriginalReply0
MEVictim
· 01-21 17:51
Another OTC deal, give it a rest retail investors, just here to tell you a story.
View OriginalReply0
ProbablyNothing
· 01-21 17:46
It's the same old trick again, from 45% to 70%? Starting to hype it up without any on-chain data to confirm, a typical retail trap to fleece investors in advance.
View OriginalReply0
TradingNightmare
· 01-21 17:41
Same old trick, from 45% to 70%? Haha, daring to boast without on-chain evidence, a classic scammy marketing pitch.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoHistoryClass
· 01-21 17:32
ngl this screams $LUNA 2021 vibes... "institutional backing" whispers before the rug pull. history doesn't repeat but it sure does rhyme, yeah?
Dusk recently rumors have circulated that institutional holdings might have increased from 45% to 70%. Although there is no official confirmation and the source is unclear, this is definitely worth considering. If true, what does it imply? If false, why would such claims be made?
Looking back, the 45% figure most likely comes from estimates based on initial token distribution. During the first allocation in 2019, the combined share of institutions and project team was close to 80%. By April 2022, when the unlock period ended, no one really knows how much institutions still held. If holdings truly increased to 70%, spot selling pressure would significantly decrease, providing price support. The problem is, there is currently no on-chain data to confirm this, nor any public announcement.
Let's examine the on-chain situation. The top five addresses still hold 68.65%, with no change. Binance's cold wallet contains 13.46%, which is mostly retail custodial funds. If institutions really increased their holdings, they would likely do so through OTC channels, which are inherently opaque. The only way to indirectly observe this is through net outflows from exchanges.
Logically, increasing holdings to 25% of circulating supply in the short term would require investing about 37.5 million USD. The market should have already reacted to this. Such rumors, frankly, could just be a common marketing tactic in the crypto space aimed at triggering retail FOMO.